President’s Testimony

That Republicans were determined to release the tape, and Democrats intent on withholding it, leads me to believe that our politicians have it all wrong. It should have clearly been the other way around. Where was the famous combative president or the X-rated revelations we were supposed to see? The Clinton deposition only buoyed the president’s story and revealed the Starr investigation as a monumental waste of money, a determined witch hunt. The video was billed as a blockbuster and ended up being a box office flop. What will the pundits do now?

MALIK DUCARD

Los Angeles

*

If we let Bill Clinton get away with his actions, then we may as well crown him king because he will have established conclusively that he is above the law.

TED SHOWN

Mission Viejo

*

The best I can hope for in the midst of all this scandal would be for the American people to wake up and start demanding a government that truly represents us. A government that is accessible and responsive, not to mention responsible. A government that meets our needs rather than manipulating the citizenry to meet its needs. If it be truly the will of the people to reject President Clinton, then let it symbolize the rejection of the slick, double-talking career politicians who smile at us on TV as they lay waste to our Constitution, our environment and our American Dream.

If our nation’s leader must be sacrificed on the altar of public outrage--here on the eve of the new millennium--then at least let it be to make way for something more.

LAURIE DENNISON

Glendale

*

I think we’ve just seen the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. Starr has nothing except a man who desperately tried to cover up an affair by lying, something most people would also do. At the bottom, this is an effort by conservative politicians to undo the election of ’96 and subvert the next one. Sex is just the circus; behind the scene is the real story, a struggle for political power and the treasures it brings.

NEIL CLEERE

Yorba Linda

*

President Clinton says no other president has been through what he is going through. Very true, sir, but then again, no other president has lied so openly either. Next question please?

JON FLEISCHER

Redlands

*

Decadence! It is the assault on the Constitution we should worry about: When the right to know is subverted to the right to peep, civility gives way to blind partisanship and we are in the killing fields. Decadence? Self-absorbed righteousness and the push to theocracy by the extreme right are the issues. I do not have any decadent friends or enemies, but I do recognize small minds and small hearts. Decadence! Give it a rest.

D.A. PAPANASTASSIOU

Pasadena

*

How refreshing that Republicans now require compulsory sex education for all Americans, regardless of age! But, must it be televised?

VALERIE GRIFFIN

Venice

*

The Sept. 22 article on Monica Lewinsky should have been placed on your front page. According to your article, Lewinsky’s admission that she never told Vernon Jordan, “no job, no affidavit,” has been long buried among thousands of pages of House Judiciary Committee papers. Since her false, misleading statement was the original reason Starr was given permission to move from Whitewater into the Bill and Monica story, surely its uncovering should be sufficient to stop these disgraceful proceedings where they stand.

JEAN SAPIN

Sherman Oaks

*

Paul Campos (Commentary, Sept. 22) offers shaming as an alternative to the prevailing options for inappropriate presidential behavior (censure, impeachment, resignation). Another option would be to expose the president to punishment after he leaves office, thus sparing the country but not the ex-president. Indeed, this might follow in any case but for the likelihood of pardon that presidents seem to get upon leaving office. I would favor Congress dropping the matter if the president could risk future punishment with certainty once out of office. A longer look to the future may be the key out of this mess.

WILLIAM SOLBERG

Los Angeles

*

I am outraged--OUTRAGED--that the president was forced to answer the questions submitted to him in the videotaped federal grand jury proceedings. The questions were obviously intended not to seek the truth but to humiliate the man. His sex life is nobody’s business but his. And as long as he keeps doing the job we elected him for--twice--I don’t care who or how many people he sleeps with.

LARRY PLATT

Newport Beach

*

Four hours of video testimony should be “must-see TV” for nine Supreme Court justices who ruled that a civil action against a sitting president would not interfere in his or her day-to-day governing of this country!

GED KENSLEA

West Hollywood

*

There is now another way to avoid answering grand jury questions. Clinton has used legalese, forgetfulness and executive privilege but not the 5th Amendment. Instead, he gave a complicated answer at the start and then referred to this as his answer to later questions. We can say that this type of answer is a “Clinton.”

I wonder how the grand jury felt on his not answering yes or no to the question on whether Lewinsky had given him oral sex.

STANLEY WONG

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

I am sick of this Washington scenario of the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar--I didn’t do it--you can’t prove it--you’re picking on me--attack the accuser.

If Clinton were truly contrite, as he said at the prayer breakfast, he would have resigned already. I do not want a cheat and a liar to represent my country!

MARJORIE FRAIBERG

Van Nuys

*

Enough is enough. Give Starr his book deal, his speaker circuit money and his conservative radio show, and move on!

KEITH BICKFORD

Culver City

*

Certain groups are horrified by what Clinton did and certain groups are horrified by what Starr did. Isn’t anyone horrified by what Lewinsky did? Remember, it takes two to tango or in this case three.

HELEN J. BLEECKER

Riverside

*

I find it mind-boggling that our elected officials are spending our money pursuing this. Perjury in the Paula Jones deposition? Sounds like both Starr and Clinton are splitting legal hairs. Perjury to the grand jury? Sounds like a case of he-said/she-said. In either case it’s disgusting that they are fixated on this and not the important matters of state that we put them in office to do. A complete waste of time and money over a politically motivated tempest in a teapot.

The hardest thing I’m having to explain to my 13-year-old son is not what the president did; it’s why anyone in their right mind would ever go into politics or aspire to be president.

JON NEILL

Glendale

*

The fault lies not in the Starrs, dear Brutus, but in ourselves.

R.J. EVANS

Santa Monica